Obj. 5:  Further, all that is first brought forth of man and beast, as being most perfect, is commanded to be offered to the Lord (Ex. 13).  Therefore it is an unfitting command that is set forth in Lev. 19:23:  “when you shall be come into the land, and shall have planted in it fruit trees, you shall take away the uncircumcision [’Praeputia,’ which Douay version renders ‘first fruits’] of them,” i.e. the first crops, and they “shall be unclean to you, neither shall you eat of them.”

Obj. 6:  Further, clothing is something extraneous to man’s body.  Therefore certain kinds of garments should not have been forbidden to the Jews:  for instance (Lev. 19:19):  “Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two sorts”:  and (Deut. 22:5):  “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel”:  and further on (Deut. 22:11):  “Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of woolen and linen together.”

Obj. 7:  Further, to be mindful of God’s commandments concerns not the body but the heart.  Therefore it is unsuitably prescribed (Deut. 6:8, seqq.) that they should “bind” the commandments of God “as a sign” on their hands; and that they should “write them in the entry”; and (Num. 15:38, seqq.) that they should “make to themselves fringes in the corners of their garments, putting in them ribands of blue . . . they may remember . . . the commandments of the Lord.”

Obj. 8:  Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:9) that God does not “take care for oxen,” and, therefore, neither of other irrational animals.  Therefore without reason is it commanded (Deut. 22:6):  “If thou find, as thou walkest by the way, a bird’s nest in a tree . . . thou shalt not take the dam with her young”; and (Deut. 25:4):  “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn”; and (Lev. 19:19):  “Thou shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind.”

Objection 9:  Further, no distinction was made between clean and unclean plants.  Much less therefore should any distinction have been made about the cultivation of plants.  Therefore it was unfittingly prescribed (Lev. 19:19):  “Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds”; and (Deut. 22:9, seqq.):  “Thou shalt sow thy vineyard with divers seeds”; and:  “Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together.”

Objection 10:  Further, it is apparent that inanimate things are most of all subject to the power of man.  Therefore it was unfitting to debar man from taking silver and gold of which idols were made, or anything they found in the houses of idols, as expressed in the commandment of the Law (Deut. 7:25, seqq.).  It also seems an absurd commandment set forth in Deut. 23:13, that they should “dig round about and . . . cover with earth that which they were eased of.”

Objection 11:  Further, piety is required especially in priests.  But it seems to be an act of piety to assist at the burial of one’s friends:  wherefore Tobias is commended for so doing (Tob. 1:20, seqq.).  In like manner it is sometimes an act of piety to marry a loose woman, because she is thereby delivered from sin and infamy.  Therefore it seems inconsistent for these things to be forbidden to priests (Lev. 21).